The Team-Building Tool Kit Updated/Expanded

Tips and Tactics for Effective Workplace Teams

Author: Deborah Mackin
Pub Date: 2007
Your Price: $24.95
ISBN: 081447439X
Format: Hardcover

 

• Overview
• Sample Chapter
• Table of Contents
• Request an Evaluation Copy, INSTRUCTOR ONLY!

Chapter 3

Team Behavior

Effective Teamwork is not just about getting a set of tasks done. It also requires the ability to manage the process of working together: listening to each other, communicating openly, surfacing feelings, exploring different approaches, and reaching decisions. These behaviors are often not taught in our early educational experiences, and many people have achieved success as managers and supervisors without needing these behaviors. It's only when we need to work together—as a team—that these behaviors are crucial.

I'm reminded of a group of professional team members who had come together to work on their data management problems. They sat at the table with their laptops open answering emails. Cell phone calls were taken in the room while the meeting was going on; side conversations were commonplace; interruptions were the norm. These people were accustomed to having no boundaries placed on their behavior. It was a "do your own thing" atmosphere, with no one accountable to anyone else.

Teamwork recognizes that we are accountable to each other for our behavior. It's not uncommon for about 20 or 30 percent of the employees involved on teams to struggle and resist the requirement to change their behaviors.¹ Very early in the team process, members must define what will be acceptable behavior and what won't. Inattention to the relationship functions in the team is a primary cause of problems later on and often prevents a team from maturing properly.

Over the course of two decades, we have identified the sixteen behaviors given in Figure 3-1 as critical to team success.

 

Team Rules of Behavior

Each team begins by developing a help/hinder list (see Figure 2-1), a set of acceptable and unacceptable behaviors that the team agrees to perform. The help/hinder list is designed to:

• Create common expectations of behavior among team members.
• Encourage desirable behavior.
• Enhance the self-management of the team.
• Help new members know what's expected.
• Bring problem behavior back into line.

The process observer role rotates among team members, and the person performing this role is responsible for ensuring that the team adheres to the help/hinder list. The team gives the process observer authority to surface counterproductive behaviors during team meetings and even outside the meetings as the team works. In the early stages of the team's development, the team should review the help/hinder list regularly (every eight weeks). Later on the team should develop an advanced help/hinder list (see Figure 3-2) that builds expectations of even more mature problem-solving and decision-making behavior. The help/hinder list is often laminated and available on the table in front of the process observer at every team meeting. A process observer cannot correct team members on behavior that is not on the help/hinder list. However, a process observer can bring up problem behaviors and ask that they be added to the list.

 

Behavior Changes

Teamwork becomes particularly difficult when members recognize that they will each have to change some parts of their behavior. The strongest resistance will occur as the day for changing draws closer. Making excuses, procrastinating, blaming, and feigning ignorance are just a few of the stall tactics members will use.

Here are important behavior changes for employees, supervisors, and managers:

Critical Behavior Changes for Employees

• Learning to speak up in groups
• Taking responsibility for one's own thoughts/actions
• Learning to state an opinion and offer a proposal
• Receiving and expressing positive and negative feelings
• Saying no
• Responding to criticism
• Making requests of authorities
• Negotiating for something desired

 

Critical Behavior Changes for Supervisors

• Being willing to share power and responsibility
• Proposing ideas for discussion
• Asking questions instead of making statements
• Listening to others
• Remaining open-minded

 

Critical Behavior Changes for Managers

• Having the courage to resist recommendations that are not beneficial
• Accepting decentralized decision making
• Believing that everyone has good ideas
• Being willing to implement team suggestions whenever possible
• Recognizing team accomplishments
• Seeing teams as a long-term effort
• Thinking "yes" before saying "no"

A push-pull phenomenon exists as people experiment with new behavior. As much as we might desire a change in behavior from someone else (the push), we resist it (the pull) because the dynamics of the relationship will also have to change if the behavior of a participant changes. For example, if an autocratic, demanding boss gradually learns to be participatory and inclusive, the team members will have to change all their previous assumptions and conclusions about the boss. For whatever reason, most people will hold back, waiting for the manager to revert to the old behavior, and may even try to lure the manager back to the old behavior just to be able to say, "I told you so!"

 

Expectations of Team Members

In the beginning, team members often develop unrealistic expectations about the team process. They often believe they should be involved in all decisions or have authority to remove their coach. These false expectations and assumptions should be surfaced, discussed, and evaluated on a regular basis to avoid trust issues.

Following are examples of realistic and unrealistic expectations:

Realistic Expectations

• Team members will pitch in and help if asked.
• This teaming process, once started, will never end.
• Everyone in the organization will be affected by the change to a team culture.
• Things will be difficult in the early months of transforming to a team culture.
• Management will have as much difficulty transforming as staff will.
• The new teaming skills will cause feelings of stress, inadequacy, and frustration.

Unrealistic Expectations

• Team members will pitch in and help out without being asked.
• Everything will be great.
• People who were difficult before will transform into effective team members.
• Team members will support each other on every issue.
• Nobody will ever get fired again.
• The team will be able to tell the coach and/or management what to do and whether to attend the team's meetings.

Sometimes the level of misapprehension can be surprising. For example, a financial organization discharged a poorly performing team member and did not anticipate the staff reaction. Apparently, team members had assumed that no one would get fired in a team environment. Although team members had complained about the individual's performance on numerous occasions, they did not expect management to take action. The organization diffused the concern by noting that all team members are accountable for their performance both as individuals and as a team.

 

Team Member Behavior

Team members are not expected to exhibit perfect team behavior in the beginning. Rather, team members need to show a willingness to explore new approaches. Following are examples of helpful behaviors:

Helpful Member Behaviors

• Participating, contributing ideas, and setting goals
• Relying on and learning to trust other team members
• Communicating effectively
• Sharing and valuing different ideas
• Considering other viewpoints
• Delaying judgment
• Tolerating confusion
• Seeking alternatives that all can agree to
• Supporting and implementing the team's decisions

There are a number of behaviors that are considered counterproductive to any team effort, and these should not be tolerated by either the facilitator or the team. Following is a list of these behaviors and measures a facilitator might use to correct them:

Destructive Member Behaviors

• Agreeing with everything. Ask the member to play devil's advocate and express the opposite point of view.
• Attacking personality. Redirect the member's focus to a performance issue or problem and away from personal attributes.
• Being inconsistent. Seek to clarify all apparent inconsistencies by simply stating, "I'm confused."
• Binding others' behavior. Remind a member who says, "You're going to love this idea" to speak for himself or herself; consider trying to surface the "bind."
• Changing the subject without explanation. Point out the need to return to the agenda; suggest putting the new topic on the agenda for a later time.
• Chatting. Stop noncontributive talking by team members. Consider asking, "Did you have something you wanted to contribute?"
• Complaining. Ask the member to express his or her concerns; say that negativity is hindering the whole team and ask, "Do you have an idea?" Give a response and support.
• Criticizing. When team members criticize the team or each other behind their backs, they should bring the criticism to the team meeting and discuss whether the criticism is valid, vague, or manipulative. If it is valid, the team can suggest making changes in the way the job is done or the member's behavior. If the criticism is not valid, remind the member(s) that general criticism hinders team progress.
• Displaying anger. Stop the process, acknowledge the anger, and ask its source.
• Displaying superiority/dominating. Recognize the value of the member's input, and move the process toward involving the rest of the team.
• Engaging in distractions (doodling, writing memos, doing other work, and making other displays of lack of interest). Ask the team member for input in order to bring him or her back into the process.
• Escaping (taking calls). Ask the member if there is a better time to meet when he or she could give the team his or her full attention.
• Explaining another's behavior. Encourage the member to speak only to his or her own behavior or opinions.
• Frequent head shaking. Surface the head shaking and ask why the person is disagreeing.
• Glossing over problems. Encourage the team to explore difficulties and their causes.
• Goofing off. Redirect the member's attention back to the process.
• Hairsplitting. Acknowledge that a consensus has been reached, and move the process forward.
• Interrupting. State the ground rules, and reinforce members' speaking one at a time.
• Making decisions without the team's knowledge. State disapproval of that method; remind the member (or members) about the importance of team involvement in the decision-making process.
• Misinterpreting (misstatement of ideas or suggestions made by the process observer or facilitator). Be assertive about your own viewpoint.
• Missing many meetings. Ask the member if there is a problem (too busy or loss of interest) with attending meetings; point out the assets of having the person attend as well as some of the positives he or she has done for the team.
• Not completing tasks on time. Ask if other team members can help; give the member a second chance to do the task or allow him or her to back out; talk about accountability.
• Not doing a job in a responsible way. Talk to the member and clarify expectations; set quality standards for how the job is to be done by everyone, every time.
• Not participating in team decisions. Ask the member if there is a problem and seek the member's involvement in the decision-making process.
• Not taking the process seriously. State that each member is expected to value the process enough to spend time discussing the issues.
• Offering putdowns. Explore why the member has that point of view; ask the member to contribute information and options, rather than judgment.
• Prejudging. Note that a conclusion is being reached before the data are in; acknowledge feelings; seek the member's involvement and input.
• Pretending not to understand in order to avoid being part of the decision. Ask the member what he or she needs in order to be able to participate in the decision. Do not allow the member to abdicate.
• Seeing only one way ahead. Ask the member to explore other options.
• Seeking sympathy. Surface the behavior by asking the member what he or she needs from the team.
• Solving others' problems. Encourage the member to let others suggest their own solutions.
• Speaking in "shoulds." Redirect the focus to what to do next, given the realities.
• Talking too much. Ask the member to state points one at a time. Encourage the involvement of other team members.
• Volunteering other team members to do tasks. Ask members to take responsibility for volunteering themselves.
• Withdrawal. Ask to hear from members who haven't shared their ideas yet.

One of the classic ways for a team member to resist change or delay a difficult decision is to employ various disruptive behaviors. New teams are particularly vulnerable to this kind of behavior and may need help from experienced teams in managing members' behavior.

 

Facilitator Behavior

Facilitation skills develop through experience and training. Typically, team members in the facilitator role find the first couple of meetings difficult. One of the benefits of rotating this role is that team members tend to be less critical when they know that their turn to facilitate will come up quite soon. Let's look at some behaviors that facilitators can use:

Helpful Facilitator Behaviors

• Appearing interested. Assume an alert body position, demonstrating facial expressions and body gestures that convey an active interest in the team and in the progress being made. Openly listen and pay attention to participants. Be alert to verbal and nonverbal clues in others, such as tone of voice, pauses, gestures, facial expressions, and posture.
• Confronting. Confront inappropriate behavior such as interrupting, labeling, or making judgmental statements and responses, especially if an individual's personality is being attacked.
• Correcting. Check inappropriate behavior of group members, and reinforce productive behavior whenever possible.
• Evaluating. Summarize what has happened in the team so far; evaluate the team's progress.
• Modeling. Set the behavior standard for the team; demonstrate trust, openness, and cohesiveness, as well as a goal-oriented focus.
• Observing the team's needs. Provide short silences or special activities so that members have time to process information.
• Offering support. Reinforce the statements of others by asking open-ended questions and encouraging the tolerance of new ideas.
• Prompting. Use questions and comments as a way of stimulating discussion and deeper thought.
• Refocusing. Redirect comments to the whole team, especially when a team member's comments are directed at you.

An untrained or inexperienced facilitator may exhibit many unproductive behaviors. Teams typically have considerable difficulty surfacing these behaviors in a group setting; it is better to have the process observer talk to the facilitator in private. If the facilitator happens to have considerable positional power, it is especially difficult to get team members to discuss the behavior problems openly. Here are some behaviors that facilitators should avoid:

Destructive Facilitator Behaviors

• Arguing with team members. Engaging in continued conflicts with a team member; repeatedly turning to one team member for support; ignoring suggestions of certain team members.
• Being too easygoing about the facilitator role. Being unprepared to facilitate; being late to or missing meetings; being uninvolved with the team, as shown by overly relaxed body language and little or no eye contact.
• Giving priority to one's own agenda items. Interpreting others' comments to support one's own agenda; continually changing the topic; suggesting similarities between the team discussion and one's own agenda.
• Lacking good team manners. Not updating a late-arriving team member; taking calls or doing other work while trying to facilitate.
• Letting the team wander for long periods. Providing no direction or help with closure; not defining the role up front; offering pointless comments, humor, or rambling stories; allowing cross-talk between team members.
• Manipulating and controlling the discussion. Making statements such as, "Some teams are . . ." or "Some teams have . . ."; making suggestions without clearly identifying them as such; making "You should" statements.
• Minimizing the roles of others. Neglecting others, including the process observer; putting down members; criticizing a member's comments; trying to "one-up" a team member.
• Neglecting the needs of team members. Not protecting a team member when he or she is under attack; letting one member monopolize the discussion; not checking that all members have handouts.
• Putting team members into categories. Dealing with the member rather than the attitude; always calling on the same members to do certain tasks.
• Telling the team what to do. Deciding on the agenda; monopolizing the discussion; offering long-winded explanations and making reference to prior teams; imposing specific solutions on the team.
• Violating team rules. Giving a double message of "We're not supposed to but . . ."; selectively forgetting rules.

People typically hesitate to intervene when a facilitator is doing a poor job. However, it is well worth trying to get on track by doing one of the following:

• Have the process observer interrupt and state the needs of the team.
• Call for a break and have several members talk to the facilitator.
• Ask the team to evaluate its progress and provide feedback to all members.
• Have an outside consultant say what team members are not yet able to surface.

 

Managing Team Conflict

Most people have considerable difficulty surfacing and working through problems and conflicts. They "collect stamps," or little injustices, for long periods of time and use passive-aggressive tactics (triangling, procrastination, perfectionism, stubbornness, sniping) to surface their difficulty. In teams, group conflict cannot be shoved under the rug. Process observers must be empowered by the team to surface conflicts and problems while they are still minor. A simple wave of the help/hinder list has been known to bring problem behavior back in line.

On occasion, members may experience serious difficulty with each other. Personality conflicts or irritable behaviors can undermine the team's efforts unless they are dealt with openly and directly.

 

Triangling

Triangling (or talking behind someone's back) is when we talk with a third party about something that is bothering us about another person. Triangling is so prevalent in organizations that I often tease that if we had infrared lights on all the triangles going on, the entire organization would light up. We may think that we're talking to the third party for support for our position, but I contend that what we really want is for that person to talk with the person who is upsetting us. Then, when the person says, "I understand that you're upset with me," we can say, "Who told you that?" as a way to keep the focus off of what we have done. People who triangle like to come across as squeaky clean and let others do their dirty work. Triangling is extremely detrimental to the team and must be stopped.

 

Stamp Collecting

Many team conflicts have been brewing for some time and simply come to a head when there is no longer a supervisor to intervene. I call these old resentments "collecting stamps." A team member experiences a resentment and rather than deal with it directly, she opens her imaginary book of stamps to the page with the individual's name, licks a stamp, and puts it in the book. Then, each time the individual does something wrong, the team member uses the behavior to validate the original stamp. Meanwhile, the other person doesn't have a clue that his colleague has been upset with him for years. After a while, some people develop bulging books of stamps containing all the "bad" things that other people have done to them over an entire work history. These stamps are the seedbed for much of the conflict on teams. Obviously, teams can't function effectively with bulging books of stamps, so they must commit to surfacing old stamps and not collecting any new ones.

One of the advantages of using terms such as triangling and stamp collecting is that they give the team a common language to use when discussing things that are difficult for them. For example, a team member may approach an individual he is having a problem with and say, "I'm starting to collect a stamp on this and I'd like to talk with you about it."

 

Learning to Give and Receive Feedback

When team members are learning how to handle conflict with each other, they need to understand that sharing feedback about how they feel is actually a "gift" to the other team member. We teach them three rules about receiving feedback:

1. Don't kill the messenger. There are several ways we "kill" people who are trying to give us feedback: being defensive, blaming them instead, or even ignoring the person altogether.

2. See the feedback as a gift. A team member could choose to triangle or stamp collect, so to be brave enough to share the feedback directly is just like bringing a beautifully wrapped gift to the person. When team members can see that clearly, they respond differently when receiving the feedback. Learning how to say, "Thank you for the feedback" is an important step before suggesting that team members handle their own conflicts.

3. Separate getting the feedback from deciding what to do with it. When we receive feedback, it's natural to have a fight/flight response. Rather than respond during this emotional phase, team members learn to say, "Thank you for the feedback. I'd like to think about what you've said and get back to you." This delay allows the team member to sort the feedback into three piles: valid feedback, vague feedback, and manipulative feedback. Once sorted, the feedback becomes more manageable for the team member to address. Although the team member has a responsibility to respond to the feedback, nothing says that that response has to be immediate.

Team members also have to learn how to give feedback in a way that minimizes the fight/flight response in another team member. Rather than make aggressive "you" and "should" statements, team members apply what we call the RISC and PAUSE model² to give and receive the feedback.

The acronym RISC stands for:

R - Report the facts. When initiating feedback to another team member, the first sentence should be factual: "Yesterday at the team meeting, I suggested we try a different approach and you responded, `How dumb is that!'"

I - State the Impact and why. Here team members are taught to express the feelings they are having as a result of the action that occurred in the Report statement: "It made me feel really upset because everybody laughed at my expense."

Now at this point, the team member pauses to see how the other team member will respond to the feedback. If the other team member apologizes, then the process stops right there. However, if he or she refuses to accept responsibility, then the team member continues.

S - Specify what you prefer. The team member makes a preference statement about what he or she would like to see happening instead: "I prefer that when you disagree with my ideas, you simply say that instead of suggesting that I'm dumb."

C - State the Consequences. The team member begins with the positive consequences that will happen if the other team member responds to the request: "We're going to get along much better as team members if you can do this." However, he or she must also be prepared to state the negative consequences that will occur if the other team member ignores the request and behaves the same way again: "If you continue to try to embarrass me in front of the other team members, it's important for you to know that I'm prepared to bring it up at a separate team meeting to have us discuss respect and courtesy as a whole team."

As the one team member uses the RISC model to get the first four sentences out in a constructive manner, the other team member uses PAUSE to help him or her keep defensiveness to a minimum. PAUSE stands for:

P - Paraphrase what you hear: "Let me make sure I understand what you're saying to me. I said at a meeting last week that you had a dumb idea?"

A - Ask questions: "Did I say it in front of other team members or just to you alone?" "What was my tone like when I said it? Was I jesting?"

USE - Use time: "I don't recall the incident that you're relating, but I'd like to think about what you've just said and get back to you."

Prior to any one-to-one conflict resolution among team members, they must have training in how to give and receive feedback in a professional and constructive manner. The RISC and PAUSE model has proven to be extremely easy to use and helpful when structuring the conflict resolution session.

 

Conflict Resolution Protocol

During the forming stage of the team's development, when members are friendly and accommodating, the team needs to develop a conflict resolution protocol. The protocol spells out how the team will approach conflicts. It's valuable for the team to have this protocol completed before entering the storming stage, when conflict is commonplace.

The protocol begins with defining general rules that team members must follow when conflict occurs:

• It must be understood that the goal of the protocol is to result in a win/win resolution of conflicts.
• All important decisions in the conflict resolution process must be made by consensus.
• A check must be made early in the process to make certain the conflict is appropriate for the team members to resolve.
• Discussion cannot be closed until every party in the conflict has had a chance to speak.
• Talking about the conflict with others outside the team is not allowed.
• Triangling (talking behind somebody's back, which avoids resolution of the conflict) and stamp collecting (holding grudges) during the conflict resolution are not allowed.
• No swearing or yelling is allowed during discussions.
• A private space must be used for conflict discussions.
• When using a mediator, the team must select someone who is perceived by both parties as neutral and has good facilitation skills.
• A team member has the right to seek coaching from another individual with a caution not to triangle (take sides). The emphasis should be on encouraging the member to talk with the other member with whom they are in conflict.
• Team members are to use RISC and PAUSE to facilitate conflict discussion.

The following is a sample four-step method for resolving conflicts within the team. The team must discuss, and agree by consensus, on the method it chooses to use.

1. Have a one-on-one discussion with the team member with whom there is a conflict:

• Set up a time to meet with the member privately.
• Open the discussion by surfacing the problem: "I'd like to talk with you about a problem I'm having with something that happened . . ."
• Use the RISC model to share the details of the problem and to speak assertively.
• Allow the other team member to respond to the conflict using the PAUSE model.

If the individual being spoken to shows no willingness to change his or her behavior, or initially agrees but then doesn't change the behavior, then the individual who initiated the discussion has the responsibility of moving to the second step of conflict resolution.

2. Go back to the individual and have either a second one-on-one or a two-on-one. (The team decides by consensus which option to elect.) For the two-on-one option, the new member invited to participate is a team member who joins in simply as a listener who can report back to the team that a conversation between the two parties did occur.

• Ask another team member (preferably someone who is neutral) to join the two-on-one dialogue as a listener.
• Set up the time for the three-party meeting.
• Use RISC to speak assertively; express frustration that no behavior has changed since the first conversation.
• Clearly state what is needed in terms of behavior change.
• Allow the individual responding to use PAUSE.
• Close the conversation with an agreement between the parties for the behavior that needs to change.

On occasion, the conflict continues beyond the two-on-one dialogue and requires the intervention of the entire team.

3. Bring the conflict to the team for resolution.

• Select a facilitator within the team; this person will remain neutral until it is time for a decision to be made.
• Invite the coach/sponsor to be present, if desired, to listen and encourage a well-balanced process.
• Place the conflict resolution on the team's meeting agenda.
• Set and agree to team ground rules for the conflict resolution session.
• Hear each side of the problem without interruptions.
• Encourage parties to use RISC to speak assertively.
• Identify what needs to happen to fix the problem.
• Make appropriate amends and apologies.
• Identify the agreements people are willing to make to help eliminate the problem.
• Set up a time to revisit the problem to be certain it is resolved.

If the member with whom there is a conflict does not respond to the team's effort toward conflict resolution, it is necessary to move to the fourth and final step.

4. Refer the situation to the coach or team sponsor for disciplinary or other corrective action according to the organization's personnel policies. The coach will use the team's written record of the circumstances with the individual to determine how to proceed. The coach will notify the team of the final decision and the requirements placed on the team member; however, the coach will not share the details of the conversation about disciplinary action with the team.

It's important to recognize that team members must be required to seek resolution of their conflicts and that they cannot simply continue exhibiting annoying or disruptive behaviors because they disagree with the other team members.

 

In-House Team Conflict Mediators

Conflict resolution is such an important yet difficult component of teaming that we have found it helpful to train in-house team conflict mediators to assist team members. Mediators are often members of the in-house training team who already have become proficient in training on conflict resolution. They are then trained on additional skills of mediation to help with informal problem solving, peer and team conflict resolution, and facilitation of peer review boards. The role of team conflict mediator includes performing the following tasks:

• Facilitate conflict discussion; remain neutral.
• Establish an effective conflict resolution environment and approach that supports all parties.
• Maintain the commitment to ground rules.
• Listen carefully and surface different perspectives.
• Assist individuals in working toward a behavioral commitment among all parties.
• Bring in additional resources if needed.
• Ensure that follow-through occurs at regular intervals.

This approach to conflict resolution utilizes a collaborative model³ that includes:

• Checking for an attitude of resolution among the parties. Have they come to the session with the intent of resolving the conflict?
• Hearing all sides of the issue. This means listening to individuals speak as long as needed to completely vent their frustrations and upsets and not allowing the other person to interrupt and interject during this process.
• Separating the individual and his or her personality from the problem behavior. The person is fine; it's the behavior that may need to change.
• Focusing on common interests, rather than on the things that divide the parties. For example, if both parties are interested in better communication, more trust, and easier procedures, point out the shared goals between them. Often, you'll need to start with basic, low-level shared interest and work your way up to agreement on the tougher issues.
• Exploring for options that will be beneficial for all parties.
• Evaluating the options and selecting the best option for all.
• Generating a written agreement including specific dates for follow-up discussions that is agreed to and signed by all.

 

Disciplinary Action

It takes a long time for teams to get comfortable with disciplining team members. In union settings, disciplining is typically not an option, because rules for discipline are governed by union agreements. In a self-directed environment, disciplining is usually a phase-three activity, one developed after at least a year of teaming.

The team therefore needs an agreed-upon process that encourages it to handle the discipline before management becomes involved. Throughout the process, it is essential for all members to be treated fairly, with consideration and courtesy; issues should be discussed openly and frankly. Here is a sample ten-step process:

1. The team checks to be certain that the conflict resolution protocol has been followed and that the team member has not responded to the team's requirements.
2. The team facilitator arranges a meeting of the parties to discuss the problem. No meeting should be held until all parties involved can attend.
3. The facilitator has the option of bringing in the coach or sponsor or seeking advice for the team from the coach or sponsor.
4. A summary of the discussion and any decision(s) reached is written up and given to all involved parties as well as to the coach or sponsor; the summary is signed by all. (The summary may be written as a contract to demonstrate the member's commitment to change his or her behavior.)
5. The team member is given a chance to correct the problem behavior.
6. If the team member feels wrongly accused, he or she can either go to the facilitator and request another team meeting, go to the coach or sponsor, or go to the process observer.
7. The team reviews and follows up after fifteen days to see if the team member has stopped the problem behavior. If so, the team recognizes that the team member has improved his or her behavior.
8. If the problem has not stopped, the team sends a written document to the team member expressing its concern and stating clearly what will occur if the behavior doesn't change.
9. The team has the option of recommending that the team member be removed from the team. If the problem behavior continues, the team reaches consensus on its recommendation and refers it to the coach or sponsor for handling.
10. The coach or sponsor reviews the entire process and documentation and typically supports the team's recommendation. At this point, human resources is brought in to arrange for the team member's removal.

It's very important that team members realize that they do not have to be stuck with a difficult, destructive team member forever. The team has the power to remove a team member if it follows a constructive, mature process. During this process, the coach or sponsor is actively engaged in helping to instruct both the team and the problem team member, working for the best outcome for both.

 

Common Issues in Group Behavior

Certain characteristics that emerge in teams are important to know and understand. These behaviors must be managed for the team to be effective. Teams struggle with issues of trust, power and control, inclusion and status, the need for approval and structure, competition with each other, and degrees of intimacy. Studies in group behavior provide us with some insights as to why these issues are so powerful.

 

The Majority Effect

The power of peer pressure is a well-established fact. Faced with a majority of team members who agree with a particular position, the rest of the team is likely to adopt that position whether it is right or wrong (Asch, 1956).⁴ If a team member takes a dissenting viewpoint and refuses to budge, she risks rejection from the team. The team will dislike the person and make her feel unwelcome. Although we may think that a majority has to be large, research has shown that a majority of three has maximum influence.⁵ Teams are most likely to conform to the majority when the task is difficult or ambiguous and members are uncertain about how to proceed.

Anonymity is an important factor in reducing conformity. Teams that allow members to give anonymous answers have shown substantial reduction in conformity.

Encouraging the presence of a dissenter is important for reducing conformity. If another team member joins in with a "me, too" dissent, conformity is significantly reduced. The paradox here is that teams often value unity and cohesion to the extent that different points of view are no longer surfaced. Yet the stimulation of divergent thinking causes people to identify better solutions and improve consensus decision making. When it is known that team members will have difficulty encouraging dissent on their own, it's important to structure dissention so that team members see it as a role, rather than belonging to any one member. However, studies do show that honest dissent by a member with the courage to speak his mind is more powerful than the "devil's advocate" role.⁶

 

Minority Viewpoint

Studies have found that minorities exert power in quite different ways than majorities.⁷ Because they don't have the sheer numbers, minorities must use other strategies. Studies show that minorities must be consistent in their position over time to be persuasive. If they compromise or show inconsistency, they will have no impact. If the dissenter is confident, consistent, and willing to pay a price, others will consider the dissenter's position or at least reconsider their own. Minorities also have greater success doing their persuading in private or indirectly rather than in public. Team members will privately shift position toward the minority when the individual creates a perception of confidence.

 

Directive Leadership

If a leader is strong, states his or her position at the outset, and appears to have a strong preference for a particular outcome, the team is less likely to consider differing information or solutions. Directive leadership is linked to less information considered, fewer solutions found, discouragement of dissent, and more self-censorship (Flowers, 1977; Leana, 1985; Moorhead and Montanari, 1986).⁸

 

The Abilene Paradox

Dr. Jerry Harvey coined the phrase the Abilene Paradox⁹ to describe the irony when teams take action that nobody wants just to avoid conflict. Everyone fails to communicate his or her true thoughts and feelings, and as a result, the team experiences anger and frustration. Harvey suggests that the issue is truly about the failure to achieve agreement, rather than about conflict. Members experience action anxiety and fear of being labeled non–team players. Overcoming the Abilene Paradox requires team members to be assertive in a group setting and to calculate the risk of taking action versus the risk of not taking action at all.

 

Groupthink

In 1971, Irving Janis coined the term groupthink¹⁰ to describe the phenomenon where team members succumb to team pressure even when it's in direct contradiction to their values and goals. Janis identified eight factors that influence groupthink: an illusion of invulnerability in which team members believe they can't possibly be wrong if everyone agrees; an illusion of inherent morality in which teams believe they will make the morally correct choice; collective rationalization in which members distort information to fit their rationalization for a certain position; peer pressure; negative stereotyping of people who don't fit the mold; pressure for self-censorship of contrary members; mindguarding in which team members withhold information that doesn't support the team's position; and an illusion of unanimity in which silence is treated as agreement and agreement is more important than correctness.

 

Polarizing

If a team favors a particular position, it will make riskier decisions about that position than as individuals alone. The same is true if a team believes that a team member has done something wrong. If the team members discuss the situation with each other, they will come to believe that the person is even guiltier than they originally thought.

 

Sharing of Information

According to research, the information that is likely to be shared on a team is information that people have in common. "Unique" information, held by one or a few team members, is less likely to be shared (Stasser & Titus, 1985).¹¹ There are several ways to break this sampling bias and get people to express information that they uniquely hold. One way is to make them aware of the fact that they hold unique pieces of information. They then are more likely to share it (Henry, 1995).¹² Another way is to assign expert roles (subject matter experts) to individuals based on the fact that they have unique information. Research also suggests that extending the amount of time for discussion will cause people to eventually share unique information (Larsen, Christensen, Franz and Abbott, 1998).¹³

 

Problems Experienced by Teams and Coaches

It's no surprise that problems on a team are not limited to interactions between members. Many times teams have just as much difficulty with their coach. Here are some typical problems that team members have identified with their coaches:

• Incomplete charters with vague information
• Lack of training for the coach
• Coach engaging in triangling with other coaches or a subgroup of the team
• Untrustworthy behaviors
• No buy-in to the goals and approach
• Lack of team involvement in decisions
• Perceived inconsistency in enforcing policy
• Favoritism shown by the coach
• Conflicting production and teaming goals
• Not feeling appreciated by the coach
• Communication barriers and breakdowns
• Lack of team building effort by the coach
• Short-term versus long-term plans
• Not meeting with the team
• Lack of consistent, open communication
• Role confusion
• Coach not visiting regularly in the team's environment
• Cloudy vision
• Coach having too much to do and not enough time for the team
• Providing little or no positive reinforcement
• Not backing the team up when things get tough

We encourage a regular feedback process between the team and the coach to help eliminate or reduce these problems. Problem behavior left unchecked, especially as the team is being formed, will cause far greater problems as the coach releases more and more authority to the team. The trust between the team and the coach is critical for successful teaming.

 

© 2007 Deborah Mackin.
All rights reserved.
Published by AMACOM Books
http://www.amacombooks.org
A Division of the American Management Association
1601 Broadway, New York, NY 10019
To order call: 1-800-262-9699
E-mail: pubs_cust_serv@amanet.org

Search the full text of this book